From Fedora Project Wiki

Fedora Board Meeting, 2011-July-06

  • Secretary: Jon Stanley
  • Meeting type: Phone



  • Jared Smith
  • Jon Stanley
  • Guillermo Gómez
  • Peter Robinson
  • Rex Dieter
  • Rudi Landmann
  • Tom Callaway (Invited guest)
  • Joerg Simon (late and gobby only)
  • Toshio Kuratomi (late)

Not Present

  • Jaroslav Reznik


  • David Nalley


Updates Board business


  • Welcome to new members of the Board
    • Welcome to the first phone meetings
    • Meetings every week (can discuss today)
      • Alternating phone/IRC meeting
    • Send agenda items to jsmith or board-private
  • Fedora 16 Schedule
  • Update on FUDCon {EMEA/APAC/NA} status
    • Working on coming up with a list of tickets that should be opened for any FUDCon to make it easier to keep track of
    • EMEA in Milan on 9/30-10/2
      • Planning going well
    • APAC - decision is imminently forthcoming,
      • Opening bid for next year as soon as this year's decision is announced (schedule is to do Mar-May next year, in Red Hat fiscal Q1)
    • FUDCon NA Jan 13-15 in Blacksburg, VA.
      • planning meetings start today
    • Possible FAD to evaluate FUDCon planning process (after a FUDCon)?

Board Business

  • FPCA discussion (with Tom Callaway as an invited guest)
    • When Fedora got started, CLA (specifically Apache CLA) was mandated by Red Hat.
    • Interpretation worked for most people, however the text was very confusing
    • Spot started working on a replacement, working with Red Hat Legal to draft
    • Allow explicit licensing, but have a safety net license
      • by agreeing to FPCA, you give permission to use under default license IF UNLICENSED otherwise.
    • FPCA was not mandated by Red Hat Legal (and significant staffing changes since CLA was mandated)
    • Having a default licensing agreement makes sense, don't want to go towards copyright assignment
    • Other projects have similar agreements, for example Asterisk.
    • the hope when the FPCA was crafted was having something legally valid, but still understandable
    • For the most part, positive feedback from FPCA
    • Reached out to people that found the CLA objectionable, universally they had no issues with the FPCA.
    • Requiring explicit licensing is a bearucratic nightmare
      • Would have to build mechanisms to block non-explicitly licensed content.
    • Where do you put/how to check license files in say, JPEG files?
    • We would have to build gates around every possible area of contribution
    • Seems the objection to the FPCA is not that they don't want to sign the FPCA but that it's "hard" to sign the FPCA
      • Would it be better to address those specific usability problems?
    • i18n of FAS/FPCA
    • To be clear, none of the solutions we are evaluating would allow unlicensed contributions to Fedora
      • In the US, at least, there's only minimal rights associated with things that have no license, therefore, we would be on shakey legal grounds if we accepted contributions without license terms
    • Third parties have approached us that were not comfortable contributing to Fedora with either the CLA or no agreement in place, however, they were comfortable with the FPCA.

PROPOSAL: Do we drop FPCA as being mandatory in favor of explicit licensing of all contributions?

  • Board unanimously votes against the proposal.

Other notes

  • Next meeting: Public IRC meeting on Wednesday, July 13th
    • Need to figure out meeting time
    • We'll ask FPC to re-visit their schedule, and if they don't feel like moving, we'll find another time